Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I think changes in the games can be summarized as "revenue optimization in an increasingly competitive environment".

I consider changes in the community to be a result of the changes in the games. When devs stop catering to "X style plaers" and start catering to "Y style players", it's natural for the X's to leave and the Y's to dominate.

Kudos on the "devolution" comments. I too find myself struggling to consider changes in MMORPGs as progress.

Report this post

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Beatnik59 - That is a very good analysis. The OP was a good start, too.

I still think that a wider demographic would find they enjoyed the older, more interactive style of mmorpg if they ever got the chance to experience it. I even sometimes here WOW players wishing WOW had features that were in those earlier mmorpgs, even though they never heard of those games.

The tragedy is that back in the early days the will to make interactive, immersive virtual worlds was there, but the technology was somewhat limited. Now we have the technology to improve upon what we have before, but the will is gone.

However, I actually think there's hope in the casual players. They've shown that they have a pretty loose definition of what a game is supposed to be, so I think they would tolerate sandbox features if they were offered to them, and some players may even come to enjoy them.

If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Thanks for everybody's attention. And I thank nate1980 for bringing this topic up.

I think a major part of why we don't have the communities we had before is because we've lost tolerance for things we don't particularly understand or like. The "Great Playstyle Wars" is a concept I developed some time ago in previous threads. Here's an earlier rendition of it (http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4877896#4877896)

"In an attempt to notdisplease everybody, the new games don't really satisfy anybody, at least not the people who like MMOs for the things MMOs do well (PK, immersive roleplay, complex systems, achievement).

In the early days, you had to be a tolerant player, subjecting yourself to things you didn't particularly like in order to get the good stuff you liked. But you were rewarded for this tolerance by getting the things you did like in a way no other game could match. This was a genre that encouraged a diverse and cosmopolitan notion of fun, but when those who really didn't understand this genre came into the picture, this notion of fun got destroyed.

The downfall started with what I call "the great playstyle flame wars" that were waged between 2003 and 2005. The wars generally started with threads that looked like this:

'It isn't right that I have to pay $15/mo to subject myself to (PK, roleplay foofoo, timesinks, decay, spawn camping, gated content, sticking a headset in my ear to get in a guild).'

And the piling-ons, pseudo-intellectual arguments, pleas for pathos, trolling defenders, and various insults meeting or exceeding Godwin's Law were heard from the plains of Trammel, to the heart of Coronet, to Paragon City, to Queynos, to Kalimdor, and many more places without end. And the community managers, producers, designers and VCs shook with horror at what was unleashed, vowing never again to make a game which subjected anyone to anything even the slightest bit inconvenient.

They created games where players don't have to be tolerant of other playstyles, because they took out all the material that caters to different playstyles. They created games where nobody ever has a reason to be offended at paying the publisher for things they don't like, but they did this by taking out or watering down all the material that people liked.

Who can blame them? It's the only thing they could have done for players who refuse to be tolerant of another's fun."

__________________________"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."--Arcken

"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Thanks for everybody's attention. And I thank nate1980 for bringing this topic up.

I think a major part of why we don't have the communities we had before is because we've lost tolerance for things we don't particularly understand or like. The "Great Playstyle Wars" is a concept I developed some time ago in previous threads. Here's an earlier rendition of it (http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4877896#4877896)

"In an attempt to notdisplease everybody, the new games don't really satisfy anybody, at least not the people who like MMOs for the things MMOs do well (PK, immersive roleplay, complex systems, achievement).

In the early days, you had to be a tolerant player, subjecting yourself to things you didn't particularly like in order to get the good stuff you liked. But you were rewarded for this tolerance by getting the things you did like in a way no other game could match. This was a genre that encouraged a diverse and cosmopolitan notion of fun, but when those who really didn't understand this genre came into the picture, this notion of fun got destroyed.

The downfall started with what I call "the great playstyle flame wars" that were waged between 2003 and 2005. The wars generally started with threads that looked like this:

'It isn't right that I have to pay $15/mo to subject myself to (PK, roleplay foofoo, timesinks, decay, spawn camping, gated content, sticking a headset in my ear to get in a guild).'

And the piling-ons, pseudo-intellectual arguments, pleas for pathos, trolling defenders, and various insults meeting or exceeding Godwin's Law were heard from the plains of Trammel, to the heart of Coronet, to Paragon City, to Queynos, to Kalimdor, and many more places without end. And the community managers, producers, designers and VCs shook with horror at what was unleashed, vowing never again to make a game which subjected anyone to anything even the slightest bit inconvenient.

They created games where players don't have to be tolerant of other playstyles, because they took out all the material that caters to different playstyles. They created games where nobody ever has a reason to be offended at paying the publisher for things they don't like, but they did this by taking out or watering down all the material that people liked.

Who can blame them? It's the only thing they could have done for players who refuse to be tolerant of another's fun."

Don't mention it, and thanks for adding to the discussion.

I wonder if developers would have stuck to their guns and kept creating the cosmopolitan games, if the short term loss of subscribers would of lead to longer term subscriptions as a whole. I imagine the genre would be less saturated, but the retention rate would be greater. We'll never know of course, but it's fun to think about.

I honestly can't imagine a themepark game getting much better than GW2 is, and people in general are getting bored of that game too. I don't think sandbox games really have a market at this time either. Just look at the turnout for DF, MO, and Vanguard before those three games were known to be buggy, crap, or whatever you care to label it.

With player boredom at an all time high, and innovation at a low (although it's picking up some), will we see a resurgence of more complex games designed to last players for the long term, games that everyone can also enjoy, even if it's a culture shock and takes time to learn and get into?

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Like I said, if there is going to be a revival, I really think it will come from the casual market. Players of social games and browser games have shown that they're willing to put up with almost anything if it's packaged right, so I'm sure they can be guided into interacting with other playstyles. They have few pre-conceived notions about what a multiplayer game is supposed to be like. I believe that there is a market for a casual sandbox, which could be a gateway drug to a demand for more complexity and the high-end market.

If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.

Report this post

People don't like old MMOs because they played them first. They like them because they prefer that game style.

I played the pokemon TCG then the Digimon one and then Yugioh and then Harry Potter and then last I played Magic. And I like Magic better because its better. Pokemon and Harry Potter were better than Yugioh and Digimon was probably the worst.

My preference order was:

Digimon, Yugioh, Pokemon, Harry Potter, Magic. Or to make it more simple:

Order of play:

12345

Order of preference:

2/3/1/4/5

It has nothing to do with the one I played when trading card games were new and unexplored to me. It has to do with which games are better, imo of course.

Similarly with MMOs I played runscape and then tibia and then WoW and then guild wars and then a tale in the desert and so forth.

Guess what, Runescape is my least favorite. Because the order I was exposed to them doesn't fucking matter.

The people who prefer old style MMOs prefer them because that game style is more interesting. If I hear this rose tinted glasses bullshit one more time I will have to go out and kick puppies.

So the next time you want to make a stupid/moronic/unsubstantiated argument which has no basis in reality, except apparently among WoW players, go figure, think of the god damn puppies and go post in in the WoW forums. It will be on par with the intellectual level of the WoW player base.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by nate1980

Seen some people creating posts about the community of MMORPG's and things that effect them and it started me thinking of how the community has evolved. So I'll lay out my opinion on how the community evolved, and see what you all think and have to add.

* Pre - WoW Era (AKA "The Golden Age")

This was the height of the mmorpg genre IMHO, because this was the era when MMORPG's were created by fans for the fans, and populated only by a niche group of gamers who's passion was to live a second life through their avatar in an online environment with other players. There was a tight knit global community, because everyone needed to group to get the best xp and to overcome challenges encountered on a daily basis that was too much for any one person to overcome. A servers community as a whole got along great, worked well together, and was helpful. People eventually grew closer to people as they leveled up and formed guilds. While guilds were formed of like-minded and goal oriented players, they weren't a players sole source of socialization. People still talked with, grouped regularly with, and otherwise socialized with the larger server community.

* The WoW Era

This era, when WoW was gaining steam, and before all the WoW clones, the community was in-between what it was before WoW and what it is now. Back then, leveling still took time, but the focus on group leveling was replaced by quest-hub leveling. Also, the elimated the need for crafted gear to get through the game, since quests and mobs rewarded gear often enough not to need it. Because whoever tags a mob first, hits the harvesting node first, and so on gets credit, this new system pitted one player against the other. Even in group content (dungeons and raids) it was players pitted against each other for drops. So you seen the global community slowly disappear while the guild communities started to rise in popularity. While you could still somewhat depend on other players to group up for needed things, your guild was your go to place for any serious socialization.

* Post-WoW Era (AKA "The Clone Period*)

WoW still exists, investors have seen WoW's success and decided to clone WoW in many parts, while dumbing down the game mechanics even further. WoW also does the same over the years. Thus the final nail in server wide communities are gone, and the focus is purely on guild communities. WoW introduced the genre to a larger market, a market where people have lots of friends who also play MMORPG's, so people rely less on strangers, and instead stick to their friends and guilds. Socialization outside of guild chat is usually trolling or youngster chat in /general and the like, chat channels. If you want a good community experience, people tell you to join a guild. The problem with this, unlike Pre-WoW games, joining a guild is like rolling a dice, since you haven't grouped with any of those people yet, so you don't know how you will get along with them and etc. Before WoW, you knew the people around you before you ever joined their guild, so you didn't join a guild lightly. You usually joined 1 guild pre-WoW and that was it, you were loyal. Post-WoW, there are hundreds and thousands of guilds, all claiming to offer the same thing, and so on. If you want to feel like you're a part of any kind of community, guilds is where it's at.

So there we are, my opinion on the evolution of the MMORPG community. While some games have tried to bring back or improve old mechanics in order to foster and encourage a server-wide community in recent history, most haven't. Players are now used to how things are done in the Post-WoW era, and I don't know if we'll ever have communities like we did before WoW came out. People just expect instant features, and quick fixes. Jump in, jump out sorta things. Quick fun, less work, maximum gain. That sorta thing.

i agree with you 100%

i miss the good old days when mmorpgs were played by mmorpg fans only , now it just seems like everyone has come in and taken over and ruined it for us oldskool players

Report this post

I think a good place to start is to take a look at "non-combat" play as important again. Because it really is important to millions of people.

I mean, just look at Zynga's games for Facebook. You have millions of people, many of which are outside the traditional demographics for MMOs, who find satisfaction simply planting and harvesting crops for days and building interactive environments they can share. Look at games like Sim City and The Sims, these are games that are perennial favorites that are super fun, super engaging, and attract millions.

And when I think how MMOs have been doing the same things Zynga does, better than Zynga does, more cheaply for the consumer than Zynga does, more ethically than Zynga does (we never had to spend $10 extra to save a dying Bambi in UO, for example), it makes me wonder why the developers of MMOs don't care.

Why don't they care? I have to think that the reason is because of the whole echo chamber that was started in "The Great Playstyle Wars." People and clans who wanted the combat of FPS and action games basically piled onto the forums and the focus groups and said, "we're here for the combat," and the producers acquiesed. And when you consider, also, that many in the production houses are also 18-30 year old single males who are obsessed with FPS and action games, you start to get a notion of fun that's rather limited to the things they know.

But 18-30 year old single males who get a kick out of fighting aren't typically "community builders." You need elders. You need women. You need homesteaders and planners. You need 'geeks' (and I say that in a good way, in reference to smart types who are thinkers). Those form the heart of the community in which the young fighting types can find meaning, direction and purpose. But you need a game that can attract these "community building" people, foster these people, and give them opportunities to be respected and valued.

It starts with non-combat, which is--to me--far more important than combat is when creating a virtual world. After all, I think a "fighting type" will put up with an imperfect combat system, if the world they are fighting in is particularly well developed.

__________________________"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."--Arcken

"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

Report this post

The people who prefer old style MMOs prefer them because that game style is more interesting. If I hear this rose tinted glasses bullshit one more time I will have to go out and kick puppies.

So the next time you want to make a stupid/moronic/unsubstantiated argument which has no basis in reality, except apparently among WoW players, go figure, think of the god damn puppies and go post in in the WoW forums. It will be on par with the intellectual level of the WoW player base.

I'll bite. Yeah, rose tinted glasses do play a role. Feel free to find some puppies after you're done reading :) Are rose tinted glasses the sole determining factor for everyone? No, of course not. Does nostalgia and a rose tinted look not play a role for anybody at all? The same, most certainly not. Truth lies somewhere in the middle.

It'd be interesting if a survey was held or would be held if people thought their first year(s) of MMO gaming were their best, no matter when they started. And if the first MMO they really enjoyed, was still on the first or second spot of best MMO gameplay experience of all their MMO gaming life. I expect the percentage that answers those questions with yes, based on the accounts of MMO gamers on various forums, than a simple 'that 1st game was better' would account for. Ofc, it remains guesswork since there is no such survey.

There are research projects however that determined that for most people, their music taste gets 'anchored' in their first formative years of engaged music listening, in their teens up till early '20s. The music trends that manage to steal their hearts in that period of time'll remain their bias and most favored, what comes later doesn't touch us that intensely anymore. Of course, there'll always be exceptions but those were the patterns that those reports laid bare.

Personally, I'm guessing it's kinda like with sex: the intensity and excitement peak that each sex encounter delivers in those first years or those first times that you experience something new is higher on average than later years when you've done it a 100-200+ times. Sure, sex'll always be fun no matter when. But man, those first sex partners, or the sex in those first months with your current partner...

So yeah, I'm guessing nostalgia and rose tinted glasses do play a role, in how some regard their first year(s) of MMO gaming with later on, how much will differ from one person to the next.

There's also the automatic filtering. Some blogs and articles talked about it, how there have been gamers that tried MMO's with UO and EQ, got turned off by the mechanics, left MMO's behind them, only to step in it again and got really excited about them when WoW appeared. Those that liked the mechanics of the UO/EQ type of MMO's stuck around, those that didn't left or got what they were looking for when WoW came around.

Report this post

I think a good place to start is to take a look at "non-combat" play as important again. Because it really is important to millions of people.

I mean, just look at Zynga's games for Facebook. You have millions of people, many of which are outside the traditional demographics for MMOs, who find satisfaction simply planting and harvesting crops for days and building interactive environments they can share. Look at games like Sim City and The Sims, these are games that are perennial favorites that are super fun, super engaging, and attract millions.

And when I think how MMOs have been doing the same things Zynga does, better than Zynga does, more cheaply for the consumer than Zynga does, more ethically than Zynga does (we never had to spend $10 extra to save a dying Bambi in UO, for example), it makes me wonder why the developers of MMOs don't care.

Why don't they care? I have to think that the reason is because of the whole echo chamber that was started in "The Great Playstyle Wars." People and clans who wanted the combat of FPS and action games basically piled onto the forums and the focus groups and said, "we're here for the combat," and the producers acquiesed. And when you consider, also, that many in the production houses are also 18-30 year old single males who are obsessed with FPS and action games, you start to get a notion of fun that's rather limited to the things they know.

But 18-30 year old single males who get a kick out of fighting aren't typically "community builders." You need elders. You need women. You need homesteaders and planners. You need 'geeks' (and I say that in a good way, in reference to smart types who are thinkers). Those form the heart of the community in which the young fighting types can find meaning, direction and purpose. But you need a game that can attract these "community building" people, foster these people, and give them opportunities to be respected and valued.

It starts with non-combat, which is--to me--far more important than combat is when creating a virtual world. After all, I think a "fighting type" will put up with an imperfect combat system, if the world they are fighting in is particularly well developed.

I completely agree. SWG's is tied as my most favorite MMORPG. It had player ran cities, non-combat profession, combat professions, player housing, PvP, and a large unexplored galaxy without any hand holding. People banded together to figure things out, they took advantage of the non-combat professions, they build cities, hunted and traded materials with crafters and so on.

We need non combat professions alongside combat professions. Make crafting a game all by itself like SWG did, and the economy will be awesome. Put more features into the game, that have nothing to do with combat, that are equally as polished and appealling as the combat system.

I am so bored with all the fighting. Sure, I call myself an adventurer in these games and I do prefer fighting over most activities, but I need other stuff to do. I may spend some time adventuring, and then want to find people interested in what I found. Later, I may want to deposit some things in my house and build that up a little bit. Next, I may want to meet with my guild to plan future projects for our city. Later, a group of us may band together to elimate threats around our city, and then answer a call to arms in a nearby NPC city being invaded by Players from an enemy faction. Then after that's all said and done, I may want to drop by the local pub and have a few drinks, socialize with players who are also there for a drink, or who are bartending or dancing since both are player professions you can play instead of a combat profession.

I think everyone gets my meaning. We want a virtual world. You don't have to call it a sandbox, a themepark, or a sandpark or any other term. We just want more than one important thing to do in the same game, and it all should be equally as good as all other parts, and it shouldn't all be centered around combat.

Also, what about mob density in current games? I remember being able to zig and zag around most mob camps in older games. Combat was something you engaged in when you wanted to, not every step through a zone on your way to some other point. It's tiring to have to fight for every step when all there is to do anyways is combat combat combat.

In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways."I don't have one life, I have many lives" - GruntyStill currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

Report this post

I'd write more, but this post is long, and it gives you a general overview of how I view the history of "community." It's less "mechanics driven" and more "philosophically driven."

Really great post Beatnik59. An interesting view.

There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein

Report this post

Originally posted by AvatarBladeThe question is, would the action oriented players accept less combat or not as good combat, because half of the resources went to these other activities?

I think they would, because no MMO--not even WoW--can ever duplicate the kind of combat you'd find in other media (Diablo-style games, FPS, etc.).

Look at EVE. EVE is exactly the kind of combat the combat types say they don't want: it's long and drawn out. It's been described as "spreadsheet combat" that has little visual appeal. It's not twitch-based at all. You see your target, lock it on, set your modules as needed, and watch the result.

EVE combat is a rather simplistic system, and yet combat-wonks love EVE. But it isn't because of the combat system. It's because of the sheer scope of the game.

__________________________"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."--Arcken

"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

Report this post

Originally posted by AvatarBladeThe question is, would the action oriented players accept less combat or not as good combat, because half of the resources went to these other activities?

I think they would, because no MMO--not even WoW--can ever duplicate the kind of combat you'd find in other media (Diablo-style games, FPS, etc.).

Look at EVE. EVE is exactly the kind of combat the combat types say they don't want: it's long and drawn out. It's been described as "spreadsheet combat" that has little visual appeal. It's not twitch-based at all. You see your target, lock it on, set your modules as needed, and watch the result.

EVE combat is a rather simplistic system, and yet combat-wonks love EVE. But it isn't because of the combat system. It's because of the sheer scope of the game.

But according to your theory, these are the people that first wanted all this stuff out so their gameplay style gets more focus. People that don't want to tolerate other playstyles that impeed their own to get to a goal.

Also EvE is considered niche and I'd say indies are already trying (some better, some worse) what you are talking about. The problem is the majority of the players, the mainstream accepting something like this.

And since you brought in WoW combat, there are already a lot of people complaining that recent combat systems are not as fluid as WoWs is, and this is in combat centric games, where a lot of resources go to that.

Report this post

Originally posted by AvatarBladeThe question is, would the action oriented players accept less combat or not as good combat, because half of the resources went to these other activities?

I think they would, because no MMO--not even WoW--can ever duplicate the kind of combat you'd find in other media (Diablo-style games, FPS, etc.).

Look at EVE. EVE is exactly the kind of combat the combat types say they don't want: it's long and drawn out. It's been described as "spreadsheet combat" that has little visual appeal. It's not twitch-based at all. You see your target, lock it on, set your modules as needed, and watch the result.

EVE combat is a rather simplistic system, and yet combat-wonks love EVE. But it isn't because of the combat system. It's because of the sheer scope of the game.

I agree, but only partly. The problem here is generalisation. Even with what EVE and SWG had to offer, their playerbase was no more than 300-350k - you can subtract a number EVE's subs as coming from players with multiple subs fueled by real money or ingame currency, and SWG was bleeding subs heavily in the post WoW/EQ2 launch era even before any NGE hit the deck. So, even with what those games offered, you'll have large numbers of MMO gamers who aren't that charmed because of them. Because they can see flaws and weaknesses - for them - that fans of those games can't see or have a blind spot for.

I think it's a good thing if an MMO is wellrounded and offers something for all kind of gamers. But just adding sandbox features won't just automatically create a game that everyone or even the majority of MMO gamers, old and newer ones, will like, nor will it automatically guarantuee that you'll have the right community interactivity that you want for such an MMO. As for gaming enjoyment - I've seen any Bartle type have their fun in both themepark as well as sandbox MMO's. I agree that the more various features and mechanics that support all kinds of gameplay the better, but it isn't some surefire guarantee.